The choice: 'Tis or 'Tisn't

Month, Day: 168, Mercy, Splendour (Independence)
Month, Day: 168, Mercy, Glory (Glory)

Having just finished Light, the first of the Teleological, we can get back to the construction process. In particular, to look at issues related to the choice is of importance.

Reminder: this may relate to the Twin duties, ultimately, but we're not there yet.

So, to label the two sides, lets use 'Tis and 'Tisn't. That is, 'Tis is on the side of accepting, in terms of spirituality and more (as in, the supers). 'Tisn't is mostly operational, though some carry the world view much further.

'Tis types know that there must be means to the end. How to find these is one search.

--- Search is covered in the first of the Seven Valleys.

Too, these things are cyclic, hence 'return' is of concern.

---

We will look, several times, at the 'Tisn't side due to its growing presence. Too, that side has science on its side, or so it thinks. However, we'll give them that, for now, relaxing any need for considering 'from whence?' (as, it applies to both sides) until we have looked more at the basis.

The issue revolves around sufficiency, that we'll look at more from the 'Tis side.

---

So much more to cover, so little time. A parting comment: whether one choses 'Tis, or not, has no real bearing on the Being behind the choice. That is, neither does the collection of 'Tis augment Being, nor does the aggregation of 'Tisn't diminish Being. The benefits are to the chooser, primarily; now, it may well be that there are secondary, tertiary, and so forth benefits; to boot, science could quantify, in time, results from the choice on either side. Though, given the spiritual nature of the decision, much quantification may be beyond our doing on the 'Tis side. On the other hand, are there operational pitfalls of 'Tisn't?

Remarks:

10/02/2011 -- More on means.

07/25/2011 -- Added 'Tis or 'Tisn't to the title to stress the choice.

Modified: 10/02/2011

Interpretations

Month, Day: 168, Light, Mercy (Independence)

No, we're not talking interpretations of the Writings, as that is verboten. We are talking another type of interpretation for which the Writings may give us more insight than we expect.

That is, the interpretations of quantum mechanics which are central to many discussions about the philosophy of science, and of life. See the 'Comparison' table, provided below as an image.


Several of these are Operational-ly oriented, which can be considered smart related to the choice (second bullet). In a sense, this stance takes a "don't care" view. However, some apply fairly sophisticated techniques, such as stochastic mechanics, that do beg a question of 'whence this?' (the old quasi-empirical issue mentioned here ad nauseam).

---

The 'standard' interpretation seems to have a top-down flavor. Given that metaphysics needs to be introduced, almost by necessity, there are variations here that might be interesting.

Prior to introducing that, there are several notions related to the Manifestation that deserve some attention.

Remarks:

08/08/2012 -- Mathematics has its 'interpretative' moments, to boot.

Modified: 08/08/2012

First Mind

Month, Day: 168, Light, Grandeur (Justice)

As we construct, motivation comes to mind. There are several, including the "ever-advancing civilization." We do the work; things just don't come about (though, there are plenty who enjoy the efforts of others - too many, without paying properly for their use - that, folks, is the most basic of factors causing the economic problems).

SAQ #53: Therefore, all creatures emanate from God—that is to say, it is by God that all things are realized, and by Him that all beings have attained to existence. The first thing which emanated from God is that universal reality, which the ancient philosophers termed the “First Mind,” and which the people of Bahá call the “First Will.” This emanation, in that which concerns its action in the world of God, is not limited by time or place; it is without beginning or end—beginning and end in relation to God are one. The preexistence of God is the preexistence of essence, and also preexistence of time, and the phenomenality of contingency is essential and not temporal, as we have already explained one day at table. (emphasis mine)

Earlier, we danced around an issue (Foreknowledge) as we let the audacity dampen. Well, we need to be more bold, since the angels are there to help.

The next two steps will be to address item #2 (Brights) and item #3, juxtaposing them using "First Mind" as the BASIS, or, if you would, principle vector. Call that effort, Anselm redux.

Remarks:

08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.

06/10/2011 -- Interpretations, again and again.

Modified: 08/08/2013

Construction II

Month, Day: 168, Grandeur, Sovereignty (Majesty)

This carries on the theme, with a little step, due to reflecting on the transition from here to there due to a recent passing of an in-law. 'here' is what we think we know now, with science taking more credit for itself than is warranted when one considers underdetermination. 'there' is the mystery, which today is becoming more of a myth in peoples' minds. So, Peter can motivate several ways.

For this step, let's just follow a little progression.

• -- Some, using formal approaches, seem to think that we only need one (as in, 1) ontological premise. That, of course, leads to the binary situation. Believe or not.
• -- Why the 'not' believe? A good question since it brings up, What? Yes, almost as underdetermined as is materialism. So, choosing to not believe may appear to be easier. Is it really the easier choice? Of course, consider that would mean some understanding of the work required to hold a rational position against all of the types of onslaught that are possible. Hence, the brights are right to re-enforce each others' efforts to be the essence of reason. So, the choice-action pair becomes, believe-and-search or not-believe-and-cope. Ah, next bullet expands the former. On the latter, we can look to all sorts of discussion in the SAQ. How to know? Limits? ... Finally, sources for progressive notions and for not backsliding (anarchy from all of the john galts conflicting - egotistically) need to be developed and maintained. In short, a whole lot of work to be done.
• -- Now, the belief side takes work, to boot. First, there is to know. Then, there is to follow what is known. And, all the while, there needs to be independence. Talk about a juggling act. Now, where does one find out what to know? The answer to that question would involve accepting that something might be behind the belief. That is, in the prior bullet, those choosing not to believe imply by their action that they do not think that there is any reason to believe. Some who choose to believe may not know but are only taking that option, by chance or whatever motivation. Hence, resolving that issue is prime. Now, though, if it is true that one ought to believe, would it seem fair that the 'what' ought to be settled (if it were not, we would be back into the situation of the second bullet)? How could there not be means to this end of knowing? Are those means easy to obtain? Well, comparative effort might suggest that it is a whole lot easier than the work cut out for the non-believer. Why? They only have nature, need to explain the why, must firm up their ignoring the whence, and then have to build (without even knowing the future -- yes, brights, you all have some limit to your time here). So, the means are there as a reward for the search. But, once the means are found, there is then a continuation of the need for effort; it's not some falling into the void of nirvana. But, again, there is an offer of assistance. From what we know, there is no limit to this help (albeit some by humans acting as angels). In fact, such reinforcements that are found really do work. Why else the attraction? Yet, humans have feet that stray off of the path of the middle way. So, believers cannot really lord it over the non-believers. In other words, who can cast the first stone (paraphrasing Christ)? That, by the way, is one grunge about the in-your-face materialism that has become the vogue. No amount of proof can remove the choice; on the other hand, experiential and existential rewards do build up, perhaps not to an unshakable level (after all, even Christ was tempted) but sufficiently to sustain the know/follow-ness.

Now, earlier, a motivation was offered. Would it not be nice if those who pass over could come back and tell us what things are like? Well, they can. In fact, dreams are one method. We mentioned that before but will push that off to another time.

Remarks:

01/25/2012 -- Yes, still at it. Ready to be more audacious. What we're looking for has to do with mind; at some point, it will be allowed by science that we can observe effects (actually, predict, to boot - one step forward will be a more insightful mathematics).

06/25/2011 -- We'll name these two, as follows: second bullet ('Tisn't), third bullet ('Tis)

06/10/2011 -- Life after life.

06/08/2011 -- A little on motivation.

06/03/2011 -- We'll do this, again, a few times, looking at the nuances. The chief role of autodidact remains, for either choice.

Modified: 01/25/2012